It is necessary to discuss some terms before we begin Adamson’s commentary on James 1:3-4. Otherwise we will have to define the terms in the middle of the discussion. The first term is approbation.
Approbation is a formal noun meaning approval or praise. Adamson compares approbation in Christianity to a scholastic examination course. It requires endurance under trial and temptation.
The second term is peirasmos.
According to an online source: “The matter of significance about peirazo (the verb form) is that it is used in both a good sense and a bad sense. It can have the idea of testing with the purpose of bringing out that which is good, or it can have the idea of testing with the purpose of bringing out that which is bad.”
Translations By Adamson and the Catholic Bible
Peirasmos doesn’t actually appear in Adamson’s translation of James 1:3-4, at least not in that form. This is Adamson’s translation:
You must realize that your approbation is accomplished by constancy in endurance.
But let that constancy perfect its work, so that you may be perfect, and complete in every part, lacking in nothing (but able to withstand any kind of assault of evil by which you may be tried) (James 1:3-4).
The word peirasmos also does not appear in the Catholic Bible’s translation.
For you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.
And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
So, why bring it up? In both translations ‘peirasmos’ is present in a different form. According to the website cited above, the same Greek word is used for ‘trial’ and ‘tempted’. In the translations of Adamson and the Catholic Bible, ‘assault’ and ‘testing’ are used in the place of peirasmos. In that light, Adamson’s next statement makes sense.
The Probationary Function of Peirasmos
Experience itself shows the probationary function of peirasmos: the wind of tribulation blows away the chaff of error, hypocrisy, and doubt, leaving that which survives the test, viz., the genuine element of true character (Adamson p. 54).
Adamson argues that Judaism has a similar understanding of peirasmos. Both Judaism and Christianity regard peirasmos as training and testing the seeker after righteousness in his battles with adversity and with his own evil inclinations.
The Yetser Ha-Ra
Judaism speaks specifically of the internal testing by the yetser ha-ra. This is the name for the willful animal impulses that are indispensable to the survival of the human species. The main Jewish idea emphasized here by Adamson is that God purifies the righteous each one according to his rank and his deeds, and he cites b. Pes. 118a. I didn’t find this source in the bibliography, but I believe he is referring to Pesachim 118a.
Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good” (Psalms 136:1)? It means give thanks to the Lord who exacts one’s debt, the punishment for a person’s sins and wickedness, in accordance with the goodness of each individual. God punishes each person based on his means. He punishes a wealthy person by taking his ox, and He punishes a poor person by means of his sheep. He punishes the orphan by taking away his egg, and He punishes the widow by means of her chicken. God punishes each person based on his ability to endure deprivation, and He does not punish people with more than they can handle.
Adamson says the concept of the evil inclination is important in James’s doctrine of peirasmos. James describes its activity in 1:13 as well as the verse under discussion, James 1:2.
No one experiencing temptation should say, 'I am being tempted by God', for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. (James 1:13)
Did Temptation Have This Double Meaning in the First Century?
Some have questioned if ‘temptation’ had this meaning in the first century. But because James used ‘peirasmos’ it’s generally agreed that it did.
Adamson’s ‘Constancy in Endurance’
Before I end this article, I have to mention a possible source of confusion in this section of Adamson’s commentary. It’s his discussion of ‘endurance’ and ‘perfection’ on page 55. He explains that in verse 3 he used the phrase ‘constancy in endurance’ instead of ‘endurance’.
In the usual text “endurance” is the result achieved; in our emended text, in endurance, it is the means and method by which we strive for (and, we hope, win) approbation.
He believes that Christian constancy is ‘that permanent and underlying active trait of the soul from which endurance springs’. It means ‘steadfastness’, or ‘staying power’, and not patience. Here he cites Romans 5:3:
Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance...
And 2 Peter 1:6:
...knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion...
Adamson argues that in Romans 5:4 the present tense of ‘works’ signifies progress, not completion. So, it is not a question of more of our fruits which will give completeness of Christian character but of continued striving by God’s grace to see that our endurance be unremittingly carried on till our death. Therefore, ‘Perfect’ and ‘complete’ and ‘lacking in nothing’ have a different meaning than we normally give them. They are the essence of the doctrine in his view.
A Request for Correction or Clarification
Sadly, I missed some of Adamson’s tonal qualities when I read this the first time. At the moment I’m surprised that these simple verses sound so demanding and joyless and that it isn’t apparent until one tries to share them. The most relevant concern that comes to mind is that perhaps some won’t be able to apply them to our present conversation.
On the other hand, my concern might say something about our secular times. I appreciated the commentary when I read it myself, but I lose confidence in it when I share it. In one sense, to be concerned about strenuous interpretations ignores the fact that we witness demanding and joyless policies and practices every day with no accompanying encouragement. Life is not a trivial thing even in the best of times.
The Concluding Paragraph of This Section
Perfection, at first conceived in terms of OT cultic requirements (e.g., Exod. 12:5), later came to mean completeness in wholehearted dedication to Israel (Deut. 18:13), as in Noah and others (e.g., Gen. 6:9); here James continues the OT idea of perfection as a right relationship to God expressed in undivided obedience and unblemished life. Balance pervades the Epistle of James: here–characteristically–James has sounded the prelude (1:3) to the theme to be developed in 1:16-21.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.